IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE FILED
(HEARD AT JOHNSON CITY)
October 26, 1998
Cecil W. Crowson
Appellate Court Clerk
JAMES AND CAROLYN CHRISMAN ) FOR PUBLICATION
)
Plaintiffs-Appellees ) FILED: OCTOBER 26, 1998
)
v. ) KNOX COUNTY
)
HILL HOME DEVELOPMENT, INC. ) HON. WHEELER ROSENBALM,
and JIM HILL ) JUDGE
)
Defendants-Appellants ) NO. 03-S-01-9706-CV-00077
For Appellees: For Appellants:
DONALD E. OVERTON TERRILL L. ADKINS
GLENNA W. OVERTON Knoxville, TN
Knoxville, TN
OPINION
REVERSED BIRCH, J.
We granted permission to appeal under Rule 11, Tenn. R.
App. P.,1 to Jim Hill and Hill Home Development, Inc., the
defendants, in order to determine whether they are entitled to
summary judgment on the plaintiffs’ claims of concealment or
nuisance. With regard to the claim of concealment, we find that
Hill is entitled to summary judgment because he has demonstrated
that the plaintiffs are unable to prove an essential element of
their claim. As respects the claim of nuisance, we find that the
statute of repose bars that claim, thereby entitling the defendants
to summary judgment.
The record indicates that Hill Home Development, a
corporation owned by Hill, developed a Knoxville subdivision known
as Fountain Gate I. As the developer, Hill Home Development
contracted with civil engineering and construction companies for
the design and installation of a surface water drainage system.
The plaintiffs, James and Carolyn Chrisman, negotiated with Hill
and purchased a house and lot in Fountain Gate I on December 8,
1988.
A few weeks after moving in, the plaintiffs noticed heavy
flooding in their yard, in the adjacent property, and in the street
in front of their house. They describe this flooding as a “lake”
in their backyard and a “river” running through the area. In June
1989, approximately six months after moving in, flood water damaged
the components of their heat-air conditioning unit which was
1
Oral argument was heard in this case in Johnson City,
Tennessee, as part of this Court’s S.C.A.L.E.S. (Supreme Court
Advancing Legal Education for Students) project.
2
located next to the house, in a “self-contained concrete area,”
with a brick retaining wall around it. In June 1992, after a
severe storm, water flooded the interior of their home and caused
substantial damage.
The plaintiffs filed suit on December 29, 1994, against
Hill, Hill Home Development, and several others.2 The plaintiffs
claimed, first, that Hill had created a temporary continuing
nuisance in the construction of the Fountain Gate I subdivision.
In the second claim, they alleged that Hill and Hill Home
Development had concealed the fact that the plaintiffs’ property is
subject to periodic heavy flooding.
In the trial court, all defendants moved for summary
judgment; Hill and Hill Home Development based their motion, at
least in part, on the contention that the applicable statute of
limitations and statute of repose barred the plaintiffs’ claims.
The trial court granted summary judgment to each defendant. The
Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of all claims except claims
of “fraudulent and negligent concealment” against Hill and nuisance
against both Hill and Hill Home Development. The Court of Appeals
found that those claims were not time-barred, reversed the trial
court’s grant of summary judgment, and remanded those claims for
trial on the merits.
2
The other defendants included various engineering and
construction companies which helped to develop Fountain Gate I and
a neighboring subdivision, Fountain Gate II, as well as the realty
company through which the plaintiffs’ property was listed. The
Court of Appeals affirmed the summary judgment entered in favor of
these defendants, and they are not parties to this appeal.
3
Hill and Hill Home Development filed an application for
permission to appeal. We granted that application to address the
following two issues:
(1) Whether the [Court of Appeals]
erred in reversing summary judgment
in favor of Jim Hill and Hill Home
Development concerning allegations
they created a continuing nuisance3;
and
(2) Whether the [Court of Appeals]
erred in reversing summary judgment
in favor of Jim Hill in his personal
capacity concerning allegations of
fraud and negligent concealment.4
Because the decision to grant or deny summary judgment involves
questions of law only, we review that decision de novo, with no
presumption of correctness. Hembree v. State, 925 S.W.2d 513, 515
(Tenn. 1996).
We first address the claim of fraudulent concealment.
The allegation is that Hill concealed the fact that the property is
3
The scope of our opinion will be defined by the issues as
described in our order granting permission to appeal. However, we
note that some discrepancies have appeared with respect to which
claim is asserted against which defendant. In the complaint, the
plaintiffs alleged that Hill alone created the nuisance. In
contrast, the Court of Appeals preserved the claim of nuisance
against both Hill and Hill Home Development.
The plaintiffs also alleged in their complaint that both Hill
and Hill Home Development committed fraudulent concealment. The
Court of Appeals preserved the claim offraudulent concealment
against Hill alone.
4
Although our order granting permission to appeal referred to
claims of “fraud and negligent concealment,” a further review of
the record reveals that, with respect to Hill’s knowledge of the
property’s tendency to flood, the plaintiffs’ allegations encompass
only a claim of “fraud in the inducement.” We will therefore
confine our discussion to “fraudulent concealment.”
4
subject to periodic heavy flooding. Hill contends that no genuine
issue of material fact exists and that he is entitled to judgment
as a matter of law, or, in the alternative, that the three-year
statute of limitations bars these claims.5 On the other hand, the
plaintiffs insist that even if the three-year statute of
limitations applies, the damage occurred in June 1992, well within
three years of filing suit, and that Hill is not entitled to
summary judgment on that basis. Our decision on the dispute of
material fact issue pretermits any consideration of the statute of
limitations for the fraudulent concealment claim.
In considering the question whether Hill is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law on the issue of fraudulent concealment,
we must bear in mind that this case is here in the context of
summary judgment. Pursuant to Tenn. R. Civ. P. 56.04, summary
judgment is granted to the moving party if the moving party
complies with Rule 56.03 and the record shows that “there is no
genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is
entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” In determining whether
a genuine issue of material fact exists for purposes of summary
judgment, courts must view the facts in the light most favorable to
the non-moving party and discard all countervailing evidence. If
a court determines that a dispute exists as to any material fact or
any doubt exists as to the conclusions to be drawn from the facts,
5
The four-year statute of repose, Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-3-202
(1980), which we will discuss in the context of nuisance, infra,
applies only to claims involving the construction of some kind of
improvement. Thus, it does not apply to the claim that Hill
concealed or otherwise failed to disclose the existence of periodic
heavy flooding.
5
the motion must be denied. Byrd v. Hall, 847 S.W.2d 208, 210-11
(Tenn. 1993).
The material facts are generally undisputed. The
plaintiffs bought the residence in December 1988 and, within weeks
of moving in, began noticing a heavy flow of water in their yard
and in the street. Chrisman stated in his deposition that from the
time he and his wife occupied the residence, a heavy runoff on
their property was a “normal thing” after a heavy rain. He also
stated that he became concerned about the runoff and its effect on
property value as early as 1989, and he spoke to Hill about the
problem at that time. Further, in their complaint the plaintiffs
alleged that their heat-air conditioning unit, located on the side
of the house closest to the drainage easement, had been damaged by
water in June 1989.
Hill insisted that summary judgment was appropriate
because the plaintiffs presented no evidence to support their
allegations of fraudulent concealment. In support of his motion,
Hill asserted that the plaintiffs were unable to prove an essential
element of their claim. See Alexander v. Memphis Individual
Practice Ass’n, 870 S.W.2d 278, 280 (Tenn. 1993). Mere conclusory
assertions that the non-moving party has no evidence are clearly
insufficient. The movant must affirmatively negate an essential
element of the non-movant’s claim by pointing to uncontradicted
evidence in the record which supports the assertion. Robinson v.
Omer, 952 S.W.2d 423, 426 (Tenn. 1997); Byrd, 847 S.W.2d at 215.
6
The tort of fraudulent concealment is committed when a
party who has a duty to disclose a known fact or condition fails to
do so, and another party reasonably relies upon the resulting
misrepresentation, thereby suffering injury. Simmons v. Evans, 185
Tenn. 282, 285, 206 S.W.2d 295, 296 (Tenn. 1947); Justice v.
Anderson County, 955 S.W.2d 613, 616 (Tenn. App. 1997). In support
of his motion for summary judgment, Hill asserted that the
plaintiffs could not prove an essential element of the tort--
knowledge. He pointed to his affidavit in the record stating that
he had no knowledge of flooding prior to December 1988. He also
pointed to Chrisman’s deposition in which Chrisman affirmatively
admitted having no proof to support the allegation that Hill had
prior knowledge of flooding. Thus, Hill properly supported his
motion for summary judgment on this ground.
Once properly supported, the burden shifts to the non-
moving party to “set forth specific facts establishing the
existence of disputed, material facts which must be resolved by the
trier of fact.” Bain v. Wells, 936 S.W.2d 618, 622 (Tenn. 1997).
The plaintiffs can do this by: (1) pointing to evidence in the
record which was overlooked or ignored by the moving party; (2)
rehabilitating challenged evidence; (3) producing additional
evidence; or (4) submitting an affidavit requesting additional time
for discovery. See McCarley v. West Quality Food Serv., 960 S.W.2d
585, 588 (Tenn. 1998); Byrd, 847 S.W.2d at 215 n. 6.
The plaintiffs filed a response in opposition to Hill’s
summary judgment motion. We have carefully reviewed that response
7
and fail to find anything addressing Hill’s contention that the
plaintiffs cannot prove the essential element of knowledge.
Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving
parties and discarding all countervailing evidence, the plaintiffs
have not met their burden in response to Hill’s properly supported
summary judgment motion. Because Hill has demonstrated that the
plaintiffs are unable to prove an essential element of their claim
of fraudulent concealment, we reverse the Court of Appeals’s denial
of summary judgment to Hill on that claim.
The next issue concerns the claim that Hill and Hill Home
Development created a continuing nuisance in the construction of
the drainage system in Fountain Gate I. The trial court, as
stated, granted summary judgment to Hill and Hill Home Development.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed, finding that the
continuation of the nuisance thrusts the claim well into any
limitations period.
The defendants insist that the four-year statute of
repose, Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-3-202 (1980), bars the nuisance
claim.6 Tennessee Code Annotated § 28-3-202 provides:
All actions to recover damages
for any deficiency in the design,
planning, supervision, observation
of construction, or construction of
6
The three-year statute of limitations, Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-
3-105, does not bar the nuisance claim, because when a nuisance is
temporary and continuous in nature, the very continuation of the
nuisance is a new offense entitling plaintiffs to recover damages
occurring within the applicable limitations period, even though the
nuisance has existed longer than that limitations period. Kind v.
Johnson City, 63 Tenn. App. 666, 672, 478 S.W.2d 63, 66 (1970).
8
an improvement to real property, for
injury to property, real or
personal, arising out of any such
deficiency, or for injury to the
person or for wrongful death arising
out of any such deficiency, shall be
brought against any person
performing or furnishing the design,
planning, supervision, observation
of construction, construction of, or
land surveying in connection with,
such an improvement within four (4)
years after substantial completion
of such an improvement.
The statute of repose will bar an action four years after
substantial completion, regardless of when the plaintiff may have
reasonably discovered the injury.7 The discovery rule, utilized to
ascertain when a cause of action has accrued under a statute of
limitations, does not toll the statute of repose. Watts v. Putnam
County, 525 S.W.2d 488, 491 (Tenn. 1975). This point is emphasized
by Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-3-204 (1980), which states that “[n]othing
in this part shall be construed as extending the period, or periods
provided by the laws of Tennessee or by agreement between the
parties for the bringing of any action.”
Thus, because Fountain Gate I was substantially completed
in December 1988, the defendants assert that the plaintiffs’ suit
was barred four years after that date. On the other hand, the
plaintiffs contend that Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-3-202, which they
7
Tennessee Code Annotated § 28-2-203 (1980) will extend the
four-year deadline one additional year from the date of the injury,
if the injury occurred in the fourth year after substantial
completion of the improvement. The damage to the inside of the
plaintiffs’ house did occur in the fourth year, in June 1992.
Thus, they had at most until June 1993 to bring suit, but they
waited until December 1994 to do so.
9
characterize as an “engineering negligence statute of limitations,”
applies only to claims of negligence. Because nuisance is a strict
liability action in which negligence is irrelevant, they insist
that Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-3-202 is inapplicable.
The plaintiffs did not file suit until December 1994, six
years after substantial completion. Therefore, if Tenn. Code Ann.
§ 28-3-202 is applicable, it will unquestionably bar their nuisance
claim. The dispositive question, then, is whether § 28-3-202
applies to the nuisance claim. We conclude that it does.
In answering this question, we first note that the plain
language of the statute is inescapable: all actions to recover
damages, caused by any deficiency in the design or construction of
an improvement, shall be brought within four years of substantial
completion of the improvement. In order to construe the statute as
suggested by the plaintiffs, we would have to find that the term
“deficiency” narrows the statute’s scope to actions based only on
a negligence theory--hardly a natural reading of the statute. When
construing a statute, courts cannot give it a forced or subtle
construction in an effort to limit or extend the import of the
language. Worrall v. Kroger Co., 545 S.W.2d 736, 738 (Tenn. 1977).
Further, the plaintiffs’ interpretation of Tenn. Code
Ann. § 28-3-202 would repudiate legislative intent. In enacting
the statute, the General Assembly intended to insulate contractors,
architects, engineers, and others from liability for defective
construction or design of improvements to realty where the injury
10
happens more than four years after substantial completion of the
improvement. Watts, 525 S.W.2d at 492. These persons are not at
all insulated if plaintiffs are allowed to circumvent the statute
of repose merely by sticking a “nuisance” label on a negligence
claim.
Moreover, Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-3-202 has previously been
construed to bar actions other than negligence actions. In Lonning
v. Jim Walter Homes, Inc., 725 S.W.2d 682 (Tenn. App. 1987), the
Court of Appeals applied § 28-3-202 to bar a suit that included
claims of fraudulent misrepresentation and breach of express
warranty. The Court of Appeals also applied the statute to a suit
that included claims of strict liability, breach of implied and
express warranties, and misrepresentation. Pridemark Custom
Plating, Inc. v. Upjohn, Co., 702 S.W.2d 566 (Tenn. App. 1985)
(finding that the statute of repose did not bar the claim on
different grounds). Like nuisance, these claims do not require
proof of negligence, yet the statute of repose applies with equal
effect to all of them.
Casting a cause of action in terms of nuisance does not
render the four-year statute of repose inapplicable. This is true
because the designation given to a cause of action does not
necessarily or conclusively determine whether Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-
3-202 applies. Rather, we must look to the substantive allegations
of the complaint. In the instant case, the complaint contains a
multitude of allegations with a considerable amount of blending and
11
duplication. However, the pertinent allegations, as we have
distilled them, are as follows:
13. By the construction of
Fountaingate I subdivision,
Defendant Hill has created and
maintained a temporary continuing
drainage nuisance which has caused
flooding onto Plaintiffs’ property.
Said flooding has inflicted physical
harm to Plaintiffs’ property and
caused and will cause loss of use
and enjoyment of Plaintiffs of their
property. . . .
. . .
15. Hill, in his construction of
Fountaingate I subdivision, was
negligent in that measures were not
installed in Fountaingate I
subdivision to prevent the increases
in runoff generated by construction
of Fountaingate I subdivision to not
cause flooding of Plaintiffs’
property.
. . .
WHEREAS: Plaintiffs pray that
this Court will rule as follows:
1. That Defendant Hill has
created a temporary continuing
nuisance in the development and
construction of Fountaingate I
subdivision which has damaged
Plaintiffs’ property and interfered
with their use and enjoyment of
their property,
2. That Hill was negligent and
grossly negligent and reckless in
the construction of Fountaingate I
subdivision thereby causing injury
to Plaintiffs’ property and
interfering with their use and
enjoyment of their property, . . . .
Based upon the above-quoted allegations, we have no
difficulty finding that the instant action is an “action[] to
12
recover damages for any deficiency in the design, planning,
supervision, observation of construction, or construction of an
improvement to real property.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-3-202. At the
heart of the plaintiffs’ nuisance claim lies the allegation that
the drainage system is deficient. Interestingly, the plaintiffs
have maintained that the facts supporting their nuisance claim also
support a negligence claim. Therefore, the plaintiffs’ nuisance
claim is barred by the four-year statute of repose.
As a final matter, we find that the “fraud exception” to
the four-year statute of repose, Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-3-205 (1980),
does not save the plaintiffs’ nuisance claim. Section 28-3-205 can
prevent § 28-3-202 from applying to a cause of action, if the
defendant is “guilty of fraud in performing or furnishing the
design, planning, supervision, observation of construction,
construction of, or land surveying, in connection with such an
improvement,” or if the defendant “shall wrongfully conceal any
such cause of action.”
Although Hill may not have disclosed the fact that the
property is subject to periodic heavy flooding, the plaintiffs do
not, and cannot, argue that Hill concealed the cause of action for
nuisance. As a matter of fact, this alleged nuisance was apparent,
and the plaintiffs were aware of it within weeks of purchasing the
property. Further, in order to trigger Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-3-205
under the theory of fraud, the plaintiffs must allege fraud in
connection with the design or construction of an improvement.
However, the plaintiffs have not alleged fraud in connection with
13
the drainage system; rather, their allegations of fraud concern
whether the defendant withheld information about the property’s
tendency to flood. Consequently, Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-3-205 does
not prevent application of the statute of repose to the nuisance
claim. It is, therefore, untimely.
In sum, we hold that under the circumstances of this
case, summary judgment is appropriate for the claim of fraudulent
concealment against Hill, because Hill demonstrated that the
plaintiffs will be unable to prove the essential element of
knowledge. We hold also that summary judgment is appropriate for
the nuisance claim against Hill and Hill Home Development, because
as a matter of law the four-year statute of repose, Tenn. Code Ann.
§ 28-3-202, bars that claim.
Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is
reversed.
______________________________
ADOLPHO A. BIRCH, JR., Justice
CONCUR:
Anderson, C.J.
Drowota, Reid, Holder, JJ.
14